Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:26:44.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Revolutionary Character of the Revolt of the Netherlands1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Gordon Griffiths
Gordon Griffiths
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

American and British writers have reinterpreted the English, American, French and Russian revolutions, but, since Motley,2 have had little new to say about the Revolt of the Netherlands. My hypothesis is that the Revolt of the Netherlands was indeed a revolution comparable to and deserving a place of priority in the list of great revolutions which have ushered in modern times.

Motley liked to compare the Revolt of the Netherlands with the American Revolution, but what appealed to him in both movements was that they were as he saw them really not very revolutionary. The claims of traditional states' rights were asserted against the innovations of a centralizing monarchy. Neither the Dutch nor the American movement was carried away by a Jacobin zeal for unity. Both were directed against a government which was distant and foreign: the struggle against foreign domination therefore filled the center of the picture of both rebellions, and obscured domestic changes which may have been drastic enough to deserve the term “revolutionary.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , July 1960 , pp. 452 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Motley, John Lothrop, The Rise of the Dutch Republic (New York, 1855), 3 VolsGoogle Scholar.

3 New York, Prentice-Hall, 1938; rev. ed. 1952.

4 For the “medieval” thesis, see Huizinga, J., Nederlandse Beschaving in de Zeventiende Eeuw (Haarlem, H. D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon, 1941), Chapter I.Google Scholar

5 Gerhard, Dietrich, “Periodization in European History”, American Historical Review LXI (1956), pp. 901–913.Google Scholar

6 Rogier, L. J., Geschiedenis van het Katholicisme in Noord-Nederland in de 16e en 17e eeuw (Amsterdam, 1945), 2 volsGoogle Scholar. See Vol. I, pp. 420 ff.; 493 ff, and the use made of his results by Jansma, T. S., “Dordrecht wordt Geus”, in Economisch-historische opstellen geschreven voor Prof. Dr. I. W. Sneller (Amsterdam, 1947), pp. 32–51, esp. p. 41.Google Scholar

7 Geyl, Pieter, “A Historical Myth”, a talk on the BBC Third Programme published in The Listener, 08 9, 1956, p. 202Google Scholar.

8 van Gelder, H. A. Enno, Revolutionaire Reformatie, p. 182, n. 2Google Scholar: a summary of the urban constitutions of the various provinces.

9 Boogman, J. C., “De overgang van Gouda, Dordrecht, Leiden en Delft in de zomer van het jaar 1572,” Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 57 (1942), pp. 81–112Google Scholar.

10 Enno van Gelder, H. A., “De Opstand tegen Philips II en de Protestantisering der Nederlanden,” Bijdragen voor de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden X (1955), p. 65Google Scholar.

11 Boogman, op. cit., p. 93.

12 Enno van Gelder, H. A., “De oorzaken der scheiding van de noordelijke- en zuidelijke Nederlanden in de 16e eeuw,” Bijdragen voor Vaderlandse Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde reeks 7, Vol X (1938), pp. 145–158, esp. p. 150Google Scholar; Geyl, Pieter, Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Stam I (Amsterdam, 1948), p. 233Google Scholar.

13 “The changes of magistracy … had left the system unchanged; only persons had been changed.” Pieter Geyl, op. cit., p. 241.

14 Pieter Geyl, op. cit., p. 230.

15 Nederlandse Beschaving, p. 41.

16 Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden (UtrechtDe Haan, Vol. V, 1952; Vol. VI, 1953)Google Scholar.

17 Bijdragen voor de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden IX (1955), p. 321Google Scholar.

18 Enno van Gelder, H. A., “De Opstand tegen Philips II en de Protestantisering der Nederlanden”, Bijdragen voor de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden X (1956), pp. 58–67Google Scholar. To this L. J. Rogier replied with an article on “Het karakter van de Opstand tegen Philips II”, ibid., pp. 239–248, which drew a rebuttal, “Het karakter van de Opstand”, from Enno van Gelder, ibid., XI (1956). See also the latter's “Nederlandse Adel en de Opstand tegen Spanje, 1565–1572,” Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis XLIII (1928)Google Scholar, and his “Hollandse Adel in de tijd van de Opstand,” ibid., XLV (1930), and the development of his argument by J. C. Boogman, “De overgang van Gouda, Dordrecht, Leiden en Delft in de zomer van het jaar 1572,” ibid., LVII (1942).

19 Enno van Gelder, H. A., “De Opstand tegen Philips en de Protestantisering der Nederlanden”, Bijdragen voor de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden X (1956), p. 62Google Scholar.

20 Idem, “Het karakter van de Opstand,” ibid., XI (1956), p. 105.

21 Huizinga, op. cit., pp. 32, 34.

22 “De oorzaken der scheiding van de noordelijke- en zuidelijke Nederlanden in de 16e eeuw,” Bijdragen voor Vaderlandse Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde, reeks 7, Vol. X (1938), p. 151Google Scholar.

23 Ibid., p. 154.

24 Geyl, , Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Stam, I, 241Google Scholar.

25 Op. cit., p. 247.

26 H. A. Enno van Gelder, “De oorzaken…,” op. cit., p. 155.

27 de Lettenhove, Kervyn, Les Huguenots et les Gueux… (Bruges, 6 vols., 1883–1885), IV, p. 482Google Scholar.

28 November 3, 1577. van Prinsterer, Groen, Archives; ou, Correspondance inédite de la Maison d’Orange-Nassau (Leiden, 1st ser., 6 vols., 1838–1839), VI, 224Google Scholar.

29 For the role of Hembyze and the constitution of Ghent, see Nève de Mévergnies, Joseph E., Gand en République. La Domination Calviniste à Gand, 1577–1584 (Ghent, Librairie Claeys-Verheughen, 1940), p. 23Google Scholar.

30 Geyl, , Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Stam, I, 256Google Scholar.

31 See the description of these events in de France, Renon, Histoire des causes de la désunion, révokes et altérations des Pays-Bas, 1555–1592 (ed. Piot, , Brussels, 3 vols., 1886–1891), II, p. 232Google Scholar.

32 Henne, and Wauters, , Histoire de la Ville de Bruxelles (Brussels, 3 vols, 1845), I, p. 484Google Scholar.

33 Ibid., pp. 499 ff.

34 Enno van Gelder's interpretation, exactly the opposite, as he points out, of the view put forward by Pirenne and Geyl, according to whom an originally national struggle had been distorted into a religious partizan struggle. “De oorzaken…,” p. 156.

35 van Meteren, Emanuel, Historie der Nederlandscher ende haerder naburen oorlogen ende geschiedenissen (The Hague, 1614), fo. 174, 175Google Scholar.

36 Henne and Wauters, op. cit., I, 509–511.

37 Ibid., pp. 519, 524, 528, 531.

38 Ibid., p. 526

39 Ibid., pp. 527–8, 530, 535, 540; Galesloot, L., “La vente publique, à Bruxelles, du mobilier de la cour et de celui des églises et des couvents,” Académie Royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la Commission Royale d’Histoire, 3e ser., XIV, pp. 307–316Google Scholar.

40 Paul Bonenfant, “Un aspect du régime calviniste à Bruxelles au XVIe siecle: la question de la bienfaisance,” ibid., XXXIX (1925), pp. 265–358.

41 de Moreau, E., S. J., , “L’émeute de Bruxelles du 22 Avril 1581 et le dominicain Antoine Ruyskensvelt,” Miscellanea J. Gessler (Antwerp, Denrine, 1948), pp. 931–942Google Scholar.

42 Waerachtich Verhael vanden Oproerigen beleyde dWelck Broeder Anthonis Ruyskensvelt Predikere met zijnen aenhanck hebben aengericht binnen der Stadt van Brussel. En tgene des daer uuyt gevolght is. Te wetene. Int uuytsegen van diverssche persoonen, Aftsstellen der beelden, Ende d’Ophouden vander exercitie der Roomscher kerckendienst, (Brussels, Jan van Brecht, 1581), p. 54.

43 Correspondance du cardinal de Granvelle, 1565–1586 eds. Poullet, E. and Piot, Charles, Brussels, 12 vols., 1877–1896, XI, p. 467Google Scholar.

44 de Potter, Jan, Dagboek, (ed. de St. Genois, J., Ghent, 1861), p. 104Google Scholar.

45 See table of Magistrates of Brussels.

46 See table of Deputies of Brussels.

47 Griffiths, G., William of Hornes, Lord of Hèze and the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1576–1580 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1954), pp. 13, 27Google Scholar.

48 See table of Magistrates of Malines in “Democratic Ideas in the Revolt of the Netherlands”, Archiv fuer Reformationsgeschichte, Jahrgang 50, no. 1 (1959), p. 55Google Scholar.

49 See lists of deputies in N. Japikse, Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal.

page 472 note * Gaps in representation are due to the fact that only names actually recorded in documents have been listed.

page 472 note 1 The historian, who lost his position when the Eighteen were abolished January 26, 1579. Henne, and Wauters, , Histoire de la Ville de Bruxelles I, 499Google Scholar.

page 472 note 2 But see Resolutiën, p. 313, n. 9, where Gu. v. d. Haghen is referred to as “former pensionary,” and p. 311, n. 3.

page 472 note 3 Supplementary to list for 1582, for Antwerp meeting.